High or low wing?

[C. Paul Williams, MD]

Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
newsgroup.
Thanks. CPW

[HECTOP]

We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen, so the
subject is a taboo here now because of those two. Please try looking it all
up in http://groups.google.com

HECTOP
PP-ASEL-IA
http://www.maxho.com
maxho_at_maxho.com

PS. Wot me worry?


"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

[Brad Z]

It's not redundant as much as it is a religious issue here. Be ready to
have your manhood questioned for training in a high wing.

Brad (goes both ways...err with wings locations, that is...)

"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
>

Low wing aircraft and high wing aircraft have their advantages and
disadvantages, but high wing aircraft have more advantages than
disadvantages and low wing aircraft have more disadvantages than advantages.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:
>
> Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing aircraft and why?

I prefer high wing aircraft because I like to be able to see and take photos of
objects on the ground.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Gottlieb]

They both work.

I have flown and trained in both and push comes to shove I would take
either.

In the low wing it is harder to observe and photograph the ground, in a high
wing you cannot see where you are turning and to me it is a little scarrier
at uncontrolled airports where there is less visibility before taking the
active.


"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

[Thomas J. Paladino Jr.]

"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

High wing!

Anybody who tells you otherwise is a damned fool, and quite possibly a
homosexual.

;)

[SJC Flying Club]

At least one of each...

"HECTOP" > wrote in message
.. .
> We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
> Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
> overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen, so the
> subject is a taboo here now because of those two. Please try looking it
all
> up in http://groups.google.com
>
> HECTOP
> PP-ASEL-IA
> http://www.maxho.com
> maxho_at_maxho.com
>
> PS. Wot me worry?
>
>
> "C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> > private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> > I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> > pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> > aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> > newsgroup.
> > Thanks. CPW
>
>

[C J Campbell]

There are no low wing birds.

Even the term "low winger" sounds faintly obscene. :-)

[Jay Honeck]

> We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
> Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
> overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen

Don't let him fool you, Doc Williams -- HECTOP is a known high-wing pilot
and Communist sympathizer. And we all know what them Com-simps are all
about, now DON'T we....?

By the way: It is now a direct violation of the Patriot Act to fly those
wimpy high-wing planes in uncontrolled air space (because we all KNOW that
high-wingers require careful and repeated direction in order to land
safely), so unless you want to only fly into Class D or better airports, I
suggest that you purchase a manly low-wing plane.

Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
low-wing Beech Bonanza, but there are other very capable aircraft out there,
like the Cirrus SR-22.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Low wing aircraft and high wing aircraft have their advantages and
> disadvantages, but high wing aircraft have more advantages than
> disadvantages and low wing aircraft have more disadvantages than
advantages.

How so?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Gaquin]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:jcdnc.7424
>
> Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> low-wing Beech Bonanza,

Yikes -- one of the three most dangerous things!

:-)

[John Gaquin]

Ford or Chevy?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> low-wing Beech Bonanza,

Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Teacherjh]

Fly a high wing.... upside down.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Rcdnc.1039$pY1.108055@attbi_s51...
>
> How so?
>

By listing the advantages and disadvantages of each and comparing the
results.

[Peter R.]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> > low-wing Beech Bonanza,
>
> Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

Makes me glad I am not a doctor.

"Forked-tail ERP software consultant killer." Nah, it just doesn't
have the same ring to it.

--
Peter

[tony]

This is gonna sound a lot like a Robert Frost poem.

High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,

High winged aircraft, for pilots who fly in rain, let you get in without
getting the seat wet, low winged ones make the pilot wipe the passanger seat
with his slacks as he slides across.

Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually checking fuel
levels is easier in a low winged one.

Skirts and getting aboard low winged airplanes are a problem, and the damned
thing is, the pilot gets in first so he can't help or enjoy the view.

There's nothing with a lower wing than a Mooney, and that's what I have.

And yes, sometimes I do like my tail backwards.

AJW

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:jcdnc.7424$iF6.805155@attbi_s02...
> > We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
> > Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
> > overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen
>
> Don't let him fool you, Doc Williams -- HECTOP is a known high-wing pilot
> and Communist sympathizer. And we all know what them Com-simps are all
> about, now DON'T we....?
>
> By the way: It is now a direct violation of the Patriot Act to fly those
> wimpy high-wing planes in uncontrolled air space

The aircraft of choice for terrorist attacks on skyscrapers is low wing.

[C J Campbell]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
> Fly a high wing.... upside down.
>
> Jose

Pervert. ;-)

[Teacherjh]

>>
> By the way: It is now a direct violation of the Patriot Act to fly those
> wimpy high-wing planes in uncontrolled air space

The aircraft of choice for terrorist attacks on skyscrapers is low wing.
<<

....which is why high wing aircraft are verboten. Don't you get it?

Jose
for the Homeland!
--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jim Fisher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> There are no low wing birds.

Yeah? Well there's no such thing as a high-wheeled truck, either!

Wonder why that is?

--
Jim Fisher

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Yeah? Well there's no such thing as a high-wheeled truck, either!
>
> Wonder why that is?
>

I'll bet you do.

[Ray]

Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low wings?
I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between your
average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are the
aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

For example:

Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus, pretty
much all multi engine and jet) low wings?

Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but all
airliners have low wings?

Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?


- Ray



"C. Paul Williams, MD" > wrote in message
om...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

[Bob Fry]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> > low-wing Beech Bonanza,
>
> Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

It's the other way around. Doctors are Bonanza wreckers.

[Bob Chilcoat]

My brother always said I couldn't ever have a Bonanza because I have a PhD.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)

I don't have to like Bush and Cheney (Or Kerry, for that matter) to love
America

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> > >
> > > Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> > > low-wing Beech Bonanza,
> >
> > Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".
>
> Makes me glad I am not a doctor.
>
> "Forked-tail ERP software consultant killer." Nah, it just doesn't
> have the same ring to it.
>
> --
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>

[Bob Fry]

"Brad Z" > writes:

> It's not redundant as much as it is a religious issue here. Be ready to
> have your manhood questioned for training in a high wing.

Training in a high wing is OK, just like when you were 5 years old,
you used training wheels on your bicycle, or water wings in the wading
pool.

But at some point the boy must grow into the man, and in aviation,
that means graduating to a manly, hairy-chested Low Wing
aircraft...like an Aircoupe, for instance.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Ray"
> wrote:

> Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,

Just some guesses:

It's easier to move equipment around on the tarmac when the
cargo aircraft have high wings.

The high wings on C-130 and C-17 allow for greater ground
clearance in the crappy places they fly in and out of.

Assuming the wingspar goes through the fuselage, it's
better to have the wingspar above the cargo floor than
below it.

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Truesdell]

As one poster already said, there are advantages and disadvantages to
each (macho/religious leanings aside). I prefer high wing (qualified)
for a few reasons. I like two doors for egress if I need to get out of
the plane in a hurry. (Not a problem in a Beech, Grumman or a
Traumahawk, but an issue in a Piper or Mooney). High wing planes tend
to be a bit easier to get in and out of. Checking the fuel level is not
a problem for me (6'3"), but a "vertically challenged" neighbor can't
see the fuel level in a 172 without a step ladder. (He flies a Piper.)
High wings help when the snow banks start to grow.

I like the visibility down, but, as others have stated, the wing
generally blocks the view of the airport in a turn in the pattern
(except in a 177, so I've read) but does allow a view of any traffic
that may be entering the pattern (helped me avoid a mid-air once when
someone in the pattern decided to do a 360 on base).

(As an interesting aside, I read recently that passengers that have
little or no experience flying in small planes generally prefer low
wings because they get the feeling that they are being held up by the
wings and not suspended in the air under them.)

I also like the fact that, at least in the 172, there is generally no
need to switch tanks (there is a "Both" setting) and the fact that the
fuel system is gravity fed (no need to worry about the fuel pumps).

I think that you will find that each of the models have their good and
bad points, and that there are a number of makes to choose from for a
particular mission.



C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

[C J Campbell]

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low
wings?
> I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between
your
> average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are
the
> aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?
>
> For example:
>
> Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus,
pretty
> much all multi engine and jet) low wings?
>
> Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

They don't. The F-15 and F-14 and F-22 have high wings, for example. Even
so, they have canopies that are raised above the wing for better visibility.
The B-52 also has a high wing. High wings give greater clearance for
operating from rough fields and more room for carrying stores.

>
> Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but
all
> airliners have low wings?

Not all airliners have low wings, either. But again, military aircraft may
be required to operate at times from rough or unimproved fields, carry
stores under their wings (even cargo planes can carry munitions and drones),
etc. High wings simplify air-drop missions and give better visibility for
navigators/bombardiers to see their targets on the ground. High wings also
allow more room for moving cargo and/or people around on the ramp.

I have no idea why so many airliners have low wings. They seem to me to be a
distinct disadvantage.


>
> Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?

Cold weather airplanes are expected to be used in the bush or in the arctic
operating from rough and unimproved fields. I have no idea whether it is
really true that high altitude airplanes have high wings. The Space Shuttle
is a low wing glider, for example. The SR-71 is a low wing airplane. The
Aurora is also said to be a low wing airplane.

In general, flight visibility is much better in low wing aircraft. It is
also easier to design retractable landing gear for low wing planes and the
landing gear systems are usually both stronger and more reliable. The
downside is somewhat reduced short field performance (smaller flaps), more
complicated fuel systems, and more difficult ingress/egress. Service and
fueling are generally easier on low wing airplanes.

High wing airplanes offer slightly better ground visibility than low wing
airplanes. They are better for such missions as sightseeing, aerial
photography, and parachute jumping. They can have bigger flaps, better short
and rough field capability, and simpler fuel systems. Retractable gear
systems are very complicated and fragile. It is usually easier to get in and
out of high wing aircraft.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low
> wings? I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences
> between your average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance
> aircraft, what are the aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?
>
> For example:
>
> Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus,
> pilatus, pretty much all multi engine and jet) low wings?
>

In high-performance aircraft a low wing makes a convenient place to stow the
landing gear and also makes engine inspection easier. But there are
high-performance aircraft with high wings; Mitsubishi MU-2, Extra 400,
Cessna 210, etc.


>
> Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?
>

Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?


>
> Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,
>

It allows the fuselage to be closer to the ground for easier
loading/unloading.


>
> but all airliners have low wings?
>

BAe 146, ATR 72, Dornier 328, etc.


>
> Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?
>

Aerodynamic superiority.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Training in a high wing is OK, just like when you were 5 years old,
> you used training wheels on your bicycle, or water wings in the wading
> pool.
>
> But at some point the boy must grow into the man, and in aviation,
> that means graduating to a manly, hairy-chested Low Wing
> aircraft...like an Aircoupe, for instance.
>

Why do so many Cherokee drivers extol the "manliness" of low wing airplanes.
Come on, a Cherokee?

[A Lieberman]

tony wrote:
>
> This is gonna sound a lot like a Robert Frost poem.
>
> High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,

Easy fix to this, get a Beech....

Allen

[Teacherjh]

>>
I also like the fact that, at least in the 172, there is generally no
need to switch tanks (there is a "Both" setting)
<<

But when your'e out of gas, you're out of gas. ;)

JOse

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Capt.Doug]

>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message > How so?

Just ask Mother Nature. Ever see a low-wing bird?

D.

[Ray]

> >
> > Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?
> >
>
> Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?
>

Okay, when I said all I really meant to say most, or a lot. What I was
thinking about in particular were the WWII fighters. I can't think of any
propeller driven fighter with a high wing. Your comment about low wings
being easier for landing gear makes a lot of sense, many of those aircraft
stowed their gear in the wings, but I wonder if there were any other
reasons. The first jet fighters were also mostly low wing (f-80, f-86,
f-100, mig-15, mig-19, etc). Only the latest generation of fighters (f-15,
f-14, f-22, etc) are predominately high wing.

>
> >
> > Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings,
> >
>
> It allows the fuselage to be closer to the ground for easier
> loading/unloading.
>

This makes sense. But going back to WWII again, why were the early
transport aircraft (like the C-47) low wing?

>
> >
> > but all airliners have low wings?
> >
>
> BAe 146, ATR 72, Dornier 328, etc.
>

Again I meant most instead of all, and I was referring to the larger
airliners (200+ seats). Basically, if all other things were equal, why
wouldn't they have made the 747 high winged, since some 747s are used for
cargo?

>
> >
> > Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?
> >
>
> Aerodynamic superiority.
>

To clarify here, by high altitude I meant planes that are designed to take
off and land at high altitudes - the pilatus pc-6 for example.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Dan Truesdell
> wrote:

> High wing planes tend
> to be a bit easier to get in and out of.

My initial training was in 172's. Probably 75 hours of
my first 100 were in 172's. But I find it easier to get
in and out of a cherokee than the 172 (I've owned a cherokee
since 1994).

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Capt.Doug" > wrote:

> >"Jay Honeck" wrote in message > How so?
>
> Just ask Mother Nature. Ever see a low-wing bird?

So? Ever seen a piston-powered bird?

--
Bob Noel

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, when I said all I really meant to say most, or a lot. What I was
> thinking about in particular were the WWII fighters. I can't think of any
> propeller driven fighter with a high wing.
>

Morane-Saulnier L, Bristol M. 1C, Fokker D VIII, Wibault 72 C 1,
Loire-Gourdou-Leseurre LGL 32 C 1, Dewoitine D 27, Morane-Saulnier MS 225 C
1, Loire 46 C 1, Nakajima Army Type 91, Focke Wulf Fw. 56 A-1, PZL P.7, were
all propeller driven fighters with a high wings.


>
> This makes sense. But going back to WWII again, why were the early
> transport aircraft (like the C-47) low wing?
>

Cargo aircraft of that era were not built for the purpose but adapted from
civil airliners.


>
> Again I meant most instead of all, and I was referring to the larger
> airliners (200+ seats). Basically, if all other things were equal, why
> wouldn't they have made the 747 high winged, since some 747s are
> used for cargo?
>

Used for cargo but designed for people. A low wing tends to be preferred
for people carriers for several reasons. Using a low wing gives the
passengers a better view, a high wing would have them looking at the engines
and unserside of the wings. The lower portions of the fuselage aren't going
to be used for the passenger deck anyway so it's a good place to put the
wing carry through structure, and the wing-fuselage junction makes a good
place to put the landing gear. A high wing would require the bulbous
appendages you see on the C-17 to stow the gear or giving up baggage/cargo
space.

[Cub Driver]

>I prefer high wing aircraft because I like to be able to see and take photos of
>objects on the ground.

Yeah, who cares what's happening overhead? All the excitement is
below, and below is where you're inevitably going to land.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[C. Paul Williams, MD]

Wow! Thanks a lot guys, your responses really clear things up...
I get the feeling this has been discussed/debated/dueled over before.
I'll have to fly each when I've got the certificate...but have decided
already to stay away from the true high performance/complex aircraft
until I've got a few hundred hours under my belt.
As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
radiologist.
Thanks again. CPW

[Jay Honeck]

> As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
> egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
> radiologist.

Good one! ;-)

Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
that they are no longer able to handle.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?

Neither the F-15 nor the F-14 are "high wing" aircraft.

Most of the fuselage, and all of the cockpit, are above the wing. I suppose
you could call them "mid-wings," if you wanted to split hairs, but in my
opinion if you step out of the cockpit ON TO the wing, it's a "low wing"
aircraft.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KCpnc.11372$536.2196107@attbi_s03...
>
> Neither the F-15 nor the F-14 are "high wing" aircraft.
>

Of course they are, don't be ridiculous.

[David Megginson]

C J Campbell wrote:
> There are no low wing birds.

There aren't many with propellers, either.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

tony wrote:

> Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually checking fuel
> levels is easier in a low winged one.

High-wing pilots have permanent dents in their foreheads; low-wing pilots
have permanent mud and grease stains on their knees.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Ray wrote:

> Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low wings?
> I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between your
> average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are the
> aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?

OK, if you want a serious answer rather than a punch line, here goes.

Typically, high-wing planes have struts bracking the wings, and those add
extra drag (some high wings, like the Cessna Cardinal, manage to avoid
struts) -- that drag can become very significant at higher speeds. On the
other hand, low-wing planes that want a lot of roll damping (such as
trainers) have to use a higher dihedral angle than high-wing planes, and
that also adds drag. If you want to build a high-performance,
highly-responsive plane (i.e. very little roll damping), a low wing is
probably the best choice, but I'm not an engineer or a scientist, so others
may step in to correct me.

High-wing planes are far better for bush work. The wings are less likely to
hit bushes, shrubs, fenceposts, and so on, and on floats, the high wings
will easily clear the dock. I'm happy to take my low-wing Piper Warrior
onto a well-maintained grass strip, but I won't land on a farmer's field
outside of an emergency. Of course, I wouldn't land a high-wing nosewheel
plane like a 172 or 182 on a farmer's field either -- high-wing or low-wing,
with a nosewheel you're only one gopher hole away from a prop strike and
engine teardown. Serious bush types around here (central Canada) normally
fly high-wing *tailwheel* planes like the Super Cub, C-180, C-182, DHC-2
(Beaver), etc. You can land and taxi those almost anywhere. High-wing
pilots also worry less about hitting a snowbank with a wingtip during the
winter -- that might be an advantage if you fly in snow country.

Low-wing planes are better for crosswind landings and taxiing, because the
wheels are considerably further apart than they can be on a high-wing
single. If you're flying mainly to paved airports or well-maintained grass
strips, that can be a measurable advantage.

Others have already mentioned visibility issues. High-wing planes give a
better view of the ground for backseat passengers, but low-wing planes give
the pilot better visibility of conflicting traffic in a turn. As a related
point, I have one daughter who gets motion sick easily, so I appreciate not
having to lift my inside wing to check for traffic before turning, the way I
would have to in a high wing. In a low-wing plane you can see the top of
the wing, which is where the ice can accumulate if you stumble into icing
conditions -- that can be a comfort if you fly IFR, but it's not a big deal.

High-wing planes can have a "both" position on the fuel selector, which
simplifies fuel management. Low-wing planes need to use pumps rather than
gravity, so they cannot have a "both" postition, and you have to manage the
fuel more actively: I'd guess that fuel-exhaustion accidents are more common
in low-wing planes (especially with renters who usually fly high-wing and
never touch the fuel selector), but I don't have the stats in front of me.

You can probably extrapolate the answers to these questions from what I've
written above:

> Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus, pretty
> much all multi engine and jet) low wings?
>
> Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?
>
> Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but all
> airliners have low wings?
>
> Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?

If you're doing most of your flying to proper airports (pavement or
well-maintained grass strips), just pick the plane you like best and don't
worry about the high-wing/low-wing thing. If you're going to do serious
bush work, fly a high-wing taildragger.


All the best,


David

[Jay Honeck]

> > Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually
checking fuel
> > levels is easier in a low winged one.

I suspect that someday, when I'm beyond my prime, and arthritis has crept
into my limbs, I'll be forced to buy one of those high-wing "retirement
planes"...

I won't like it as much -- but it'll beat being grounded...

It would be interesting to know the average age of the owners of high-wing
aircraft, versus low-wing. I wonder if it's significantly different?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

Bob Noel wrote:

> My initial training was in 172's. Probably 75 hours of
> my first 100 were in 172's. But I find it easier to get
> in and out of a cherokee than the 172 (I've owned a cherokee
> since 1994).

It's a tradeoff. With the PA-28 Cherokee, you get one very large door that
you have to climb up on the wing to get to; with the C-172, you get two tiny
doors close to the ground. I find it easier climbing down into my Warrior
through the big door then bending double to squeeze into the 172 under the
wing, but other people with different size/flexibility issues might find the
opposite.

I trained in 172's as well, and when I was first shopping, I wouldn't even
look at Cherokees because of the single-door thing. Finally, I actually
tried climbing into one, and that was so much easier (for me) that it got
rid of all my prejudices.


All the best,


David

[C J Campbell]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > There are no low wing birds.
>
> There aren't many with propellers, either.
>

:-) You look kind of silly with that one on your head, though.

[C J Campbell]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
. rogers.com...
> tony wrote:
>
> > Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually
checking fuel
> > levels is easier in a low winged one.
>
> High-wing pilots have permanent dents in their foreheads; low-wing pilots
> have permanent mud and grease stains on their knees.
>

You can always spot a Cessna pilot by the row of diamond shaped scars on his
forehead.

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KCpnc.11372$536.2196107@attbi_s03...
> > Ever heard of the McDonnell F-15?
>
> Neither the F-15 nor the F-14 are "high wing" aircraft.
>
> Most of the fuselage, and all of the cockpit, are above the wing.

Almost none of the fuselage is above the wing.

[tony]

I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
efficient? My Mooney (an M20J) is really clean, I file for 150 kts (and get it)
while burning less than 9 gph at reasonable altitudes, and I don't know of a
high winded airplane that does that.

As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land. Its stalling
speed really increases dramatically from 5 feet AGL to 6 inches AGL. Of course,
touching down on the upwind wheel first puts that wing even closer to the
ground.

So, I recognize many of the disadvantages of low winged airplanes, but there's
this. In my particular one, thinking the thought and having the airplane
respond as if it was clairvoyant is something I've not found in high winged
airplanes (or other low winged ones, for that matter). Maybe it has more to do
with flying the same airplane for a long time.

Nah -- it's a Mooney.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Being a doctor, one would think that you'd be attracted to the studly
> > low-wing Beech Bonanza,
>
> Ah, yes ... the old "fork-tailed doctor killer".

F33A....nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!!!

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Ray" > wrote in message
...
> Okay, so all kidding aside, what are the issues between high and low
wings?
> I know that in terms of flying, there are very few differences between
your
> average Cessna and Piper, but for higher performance aircraft, what are
the
> aerodynamic/design tradeoffs?
>
> For example:
>
> Why are most of the more expensive private aircraft (cirrus, pilatus,
pretty
> much all multi engine and jet) low wings?

Good thing you said "pretty much", since I co-pilot a Jetprop (Twin
Commander) which is a high wing. :~)

[Peter Gottlieb]

I saw one on the highway the other day. It didn't seem to work too well,
though. Guess that's why there were all those tow trucks there to help it
along.


"Jim Fisher" > wrote in message
. ..
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > There are no low wing birds.
>
> Yeah? Well there's no such thing as a high-wheeled truck, either!
>
> Wonder why that is?
>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
>

[David Megginson]

tony wrote:

> As for crosswind landings, the ground effect in a low winged airplane is much
> more pronounced, I'm not sure they are easier in general to land.

The funny thing is that that's not the case for a Cherokee, at least not the
ones with the semi-tapered wing. I had some trouble transitioning from the
172 to the Warrior because I was used to the 172 gliding forever in ground
effect, while the Warrior will drop like a brick as the airspeed decays. I
don't know exactly what the aerodynamic explanation is -- perhaps the
Warrior has a slightly higher wing loading -- but I've heard of the same
experience from many other first-time Cherokee pilots as well.

The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the
flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the
flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in
a 172.

I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the
Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an
amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would
give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126 ktas.


All the best,


David

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Capt.Doug" > writes:

>>"Jay Honeck" wrote in message > How so?
>
> Just ask Mother Nature. Ever see a low-wing bird?

No. Ever seen a bird with fixed-geometry wings? A bird driven by a
propellor?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

>> As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
>> egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
>> radiologist.
>
> Good one! ;-)
>
> Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
> they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
> that they are no longer able to handle.

And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
can fly than most of us are.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[David Megginson]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
> can fly than most of us are.

That must have been before universal health care (in most rich countries)
and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.). General
practitioners are not exactly lining up at the food banks, yet, but they're
hardly the ones with the big houses or new cars any more, and they probably
won't be the ones buying the new glass-panel contraptions.

On the other hand, a lot of people in tech made a lot of money before the
dot.com bubble burst, and many of those people now have (a) a lot of money
saved and (b) a lot of unexpected free time on their hands. I think that a
more appropriate name from the newer composite planes like the SR-22 would
be the one in the subject line.


All the best,


David

[tony]

>
>
>The solution (for anyone interested) is either (a) add some power in the
>flare to keep the nose up, or (b) keep your approach speed right to the
>flare, rather than beginning a gradual roundout higher up like you would in
>a 172.
>
>I wonder if you're noticing the different ground-effect behaviour with the
>Mooney not because the wings are low, but because the Mooney is such an
>amazingly clean plane. I personally lust after a Mooney 201, which would
>give me 165 ktas burning only a couple of GPH more than my Warrior at 126
>ktas.
>
David, I think I'm tuned into the ground effect so much because I fly the M20J
150 hours a year or so. If you carry too much airspeed into the flare, you're
in for a long, long settling time, and the chances are you'll not hear the
stall warning before the mains touch.

Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the
airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really
close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT
issues).

The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy
the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again,
that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully.

[David Megginson]

tony wrote:

> Lots of Mooney pilots, when in the flare, retract the flaps. that helps the
> airplane stop flying sooner (and the trailing edge of the flaps are really
> close to the ground, which makes ground effect issues become GROUND EFFECT
> issues).

I learned that trick in the Cessna 172, but I've never needed it in my
Warrior -- it stops flying just fine on its own in the flare, whether I want
it to or not.

> The other thing is, what one does when landing is try to burn off the energy
> the airplane has, and clarn airplanes don't lose energy very quickly. Again,
> that's an argument for managing airspeed carefully.

I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's
see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often
make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes
in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you
saved in your Mooney during cruise.

Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes,
I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques
no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.


All the best,


David

[tony]

>
>I have to think of some reason not to be jealous of your Mooney ... let's
>see ... with good airspeed control and full flaps in my Warrior, I can often
>make a turnoff at the approach end of the runway, saving me maybe 5 minutes
>in taxiing time. That will have to be my compensation for the hour you
>saved in your Mooney during cruise.
>
>Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite planes,
>I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and techniques
>no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
>1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.
>
You may have something, although if one is familiar with the airplane and
controls airspeed brfore going into the flare, , Mooneys can stop pretty short
too w/o burning up breaks. There aren't too many airports I fly into where the
first turn off is less than 1000 feet or so from the approach end. In fact,
it's fairly common for me to plan my touchdown pretty far down the runway to
get close to the turn off, since I'd rather fly over the centerline than taxi
on it.

A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a
fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the
services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and
it reads mine, pretty well.

You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you?

One thing about the Mooney -- in fairly stiff cross winds, it's easy to run out
of rudder authority before you'd like, so sometimes it has to be flown onto the
runway. I hate touching down before the airplane doesn't have enough airspeed
to fly!

OTOH, if you start adding power in the flare, you can actually make the tail
skid touch down before the mains. that's won me a few hamburgers when flying
with pilots who don't like their tail backwards.

But Warrier or M20, we're among the lucky ones.

[David Megginson]

tony wrote:

> A lot of this discussion isn't really fair, though -- as I mentioned, I'm a
> fairly high time pilot (for not having been taught to fy in one of the
> services) and lots of that time is in the same aircraft. I read its mind, and
> it reads mine, pretty well.
>
> You can say the same thing about your airplane, can't you?

About my airplane perhaps, but not myself -- I'm still under 300 hours. I
agree, though, that after even a couple of hundred hours in the same
airplane, you start to know its behaviour very well.


All the best,


David

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bob Fry wrote:
>
> But at some point the boy must grow into the man, ....

Sez who?

"I wanna be a pilot when I grow up!"
"Son, you can't do both."

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
>
> Why do so many Cherokee drivers extol the "manliness" of low wing airplanes.

Because they have an inferiority complex that makes them proclaim characteristics
they do not actually have.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:
>
> Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...

John Price said that the question is usually settled the first time you try to set up
the lawn chairs in the shade of the wing at Sun'n Fun.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ray wrote:
>
> Why do all fighters since the biplane era have low wings?

Because attackers will probably be approaching from either the same level or above -
it's difficult to make an effective attack from below. It's also important to be able
to see in the direction of a turn when you turn in to attack an opponent. And not all
fighters are/were low-winged; many were mid-winged aircraft.

> Why do most military transports (C-130, C-17, C-5) have high wings, but all
> airliners have low wings?

The wing spars have to pass through the fuselage. With a low-wing, that means a hump
in the floor. With a high-wing, that means a lwo ceiling at that point. Planes that
carry cargo would rather have a flat floor to ease loading. People, on the other
hand, will step over a hump in the floor and bang their heads on a drop in the
ceiling.

> Why are a lot of cold weather/high altitude planes high wing?

Dunno about "cold weather" planes, but the high-altitude aircraft which come to my
mind are mid-wing aircraft; the U-2 and SR-71.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Teacherjh wrote:
>
> But when your'e out of gas, you're out of gas. ;)

But when the fuel pump breaks, my engine keeps running.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[EDR]

In article >, C. Paul
Williams, MD > wrote:

> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.

high wing advantages:
- better short and soft field operations
- more rugged landing gear
- higher prop clearance
- better off airport clearances

Ever try to taxi through a fence/gate opening with a low wing?
High wings pass comfortable over the tops of the posts.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:
>
> As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
> egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
> radiologist.

The term "doctor killer" comes from the fact that Beech aircraft are expensive to buy
and own and the Bonanza can easily get away from a pilot who's a bit rusty. Doctors
made up a disproportionate percentage of the ownership because they could afford the
plane. They also are extremely busy people and tended to not have enough time to fly
enough to handle the Bo safely, so they also made up a disproportionate percentage of
the accident statistics.

Whether you're a surgeon or a statistician, the plane will bite you if you don't keep
in practice. Being poor, on the other hand, would tend to steer you away from it
anyway.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

tony wrote:
>
> I wonder, for equal performance, if low winged airplanes aren't a bit more
> efficient?

I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to one's "manliness?"



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
> >
> > Why do so many Cherokee drivers extol the "manliness" of low wing
airplanes.
>
> Because they have an inferiority complex that makes them proclaim
characteristics
> they do not actually have.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Jay Honeck]

> That must have been before universal health care (in most rich countries)
> and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.).

Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as ranging
anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
month.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G. Burkhart]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
> Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to one's
"manliness?"

Do your wings hang high
Do your wings hang low
Does your nose have a wheel
Or your tail drag below...

[Jay Honeck]

> Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to one's
"manliness?"

Um, because it's *funny*?

Actually, I think the first observation of the studly nature of low wing
pilots was made by Jim Fisher, who first reported the connection way back in
1998 or so.

However, it's all in good fun. All of us love flying -- period. Most of us
would own and fly just about any plane, any time, no matter where the wing
was placed, and be happy. There really is no significant difference between
the two types, and they both work just fine -- so we've got to come up with
SOMETHING good to argue about, don't we?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter Gottlieb]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:KuBnc.60668$kh4.3755168@attbi_s52...
>
> However, it's all in good fun. All of us love flying -- period. Most of
us
> would own and fly just about any plane, any time, no matter where the wing
> was placed, and be happy. There really is no significant difference
between
> the two types, and they both work just fine --


Perhaps this should be part of the FAQ for the group?

[Richard Hertz]

some low wings have no doors. nothing beats a sliding canopy.

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> This is gonna sound a lot like a Robert Frost poem.
>
> High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,
>
> High winged aircraft, for pilots who fly in rain, let you get in without
> getting the seat wet, low winged ones make the pilot wipe the passanger
seat
> with his slacks as he slides across.
>
> Draining fuel from a highwinged airplane is easy to do, visually checking
fuel
> levels is easier in a low winged one.
>
> Skirts and getting aboard low winged airplanes are a problem, and the
damned
> thing is, the pilot gets in first so he can't help or enjoy the view.
>
> There's nothing with a lower wing than a Mooney, and that's what I have.
>
> And yes, sometimes I do like my tail backwards.
>
> AJW

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as ranging
> anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of employment.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Morgans]

"David Megginson" > wrote
> Seriously, with all the hype about the Cirrus and Lancair composite
planes,
> I'm still not all that impressed -- for all the new materials and
techniques
> no one (except maybe Diamond with their TwinStar) seems to come close to a
> 1970's Mooney aircraft's combination of speed and efficiency.
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
> David

Ouch! Have you seen the single engine ceiling for the Diamond?

I'm not impressed. Truely a better way to get to the crash site.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.677 / Virus Database: 439 - Release Date: 5/5/2004

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to
> one's "manliness?"
>

I wouldn't know, but I have observed that those that do so tend to fly
low-wing airplanes.

[Peter Gottlieb]

Doing a quick search for number of posts on the subject would then indicate
you fly a low wing model?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to
> > one's "manliness?"
> >
>
> I wouldn't know, but I have observed that those that do so tend to fly
> low-wing airplanes.
>
>

[Jack Allison]

Dam, guess I busted some new regs when I flew through the Salt Lake bravo
airspace on the way to OSH then landed in Reno (Charlie) on the way home
from OSH. And no, we didn't impersonate a low wing aircraft. All radio
calls were "Skyhawk 717SP". Please oh please don't turn me in Jay. I'll
come stay at the Inn...I'll buy you a beer...I'll even promise to fly a
Piper sometime...

--
Jack Allison
PP-ASEL

"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth
with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there
you will always long to return"
- Leonardo Da Vinci

(Remove the obvious from address to reply via e-mail)

[Jay Honeck]

> > Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as
ranging
> > anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.
> That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of
employment.

Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?

When a business is paying mid-level managers what a physician averages in
salary, something is seriously amiss. Unless the company is making gold, or
selling crack, their profit margins aren't going to support such a salary
structure for long.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

David Megginson > writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> And they're more likely to be able to afford more airplane than they
>> can fly than most of us are.
>
> That must have been before universal health care (in most rich
> countries) and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the
> U.S.). General practitioners are not exactly lining up at the food
> banks, yet, but they're hardly the ones with the big houses or new
> cars any more, and they probably won't be the ones buying the new
> glass-panel contraptions.

The doctors *I* know do well better than average, though.

> On the other hand, a lot of people in tech made a lot of money before
> the dot.com bubble burst, and many of those people now have (a) a lot
> of money saved and (b) a lot of unexpected free time on their hands.
> I think that a more appropriate name from the newer composite planes
> like the SR-22 would be the one in the subject line.

I suspect the general geek mindset (I R a geek) also favors the new
materials and especially the glass cockpit approach.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> Doing a quick search for number of posts on the subject would then indicate
> you fly a low wing model?

No, you have to read the content. Steven has posted in those threads, but I do not
recall him ever claiming that one or the other was more studly.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?

There was certainly a distinct feeling to that effect amongst low-level employees. I
recall during some of the 2002 layoffs, it was explained to a friend of mine that
they were laying off low-level employees, but they were keeping their managers so
that they would have their strategy layer intact and could "spring ahead" when the
economy improved. Her opinion of this was that the people they were keeping were the
people who were responsible for the company's problems.

I still wouldn't go that far, but I *did* roll over the company stock in my 401K to
another fund a while back.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Peter Gottlieb]

heh heh, I was just yanking his chain a bit.

Probably means I owe him a beer or two someday.


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Gottlieb wrote:
> >
> > Doing a quick search for number of posts on the subject would then
indicate
> > you fly a low wing model?
>
> No, you have to read the content. Steven has posted in those threads, but
I do not
> recall him ever claiming that one or the other was more studly.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GbBnc.16279$z06.2757697@attbi_s01...
> > That must have been before universal health care (in most rich
countries)
> > and HMOs + sky-high malpractice insurance premiums (in the U.S.).
>
> Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as ranging
> anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.

A physician in general/family practice?

How about surgeons or specialists (I know OB/GYN practitioners make a lot
but pay a mint in insurance).

> I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
> month.

They don't say, "Hey, it ain't brain surgery!" for nuthin'.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:ViDnc.1942$UQ.197264@attbi_s51...
> > > Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as
> ranging
> > > anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.
> > That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of
> employment.
>
> Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?
>
> When a business is paying mid-level managers what a physician averages in
> salary, something is seriously amiss. Unless the company is making gold,
or
> selling crack, their profit margins aren't going to support such a salary
> structure for long.

The only time a pay rate such as that is too high is when the productivity
doesn't match. That's true whether it's managers, executives or burger
flippers.

Remember, too, that doctors are mostly self-employed, so those numbers are
NET PROFIT (after paying BIG insurance costs, staff, rent,
this-that-and-the-other costs). In Gross income, it's probably more like a
couple million $$$.

Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be out
of line. :~)
Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly justified.

[Capt.Doug]

>"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message >Ever seen a bird with fixed->geometry
wings? A bird driven by a propellor?

Okay, in that case, I'll choose neither.
I'll go with a mid-wing design called an AEROSTAR!

D.

[SKYKING195]

> I think they can probably eke a Bonanza or Cirrus payment out of that each
>> month.

That's why the surgeons say " A hysterectomy a day keeps the boat on the bay."

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:KuBnc.60668$kh4.3755168@attbi_s52:

> we've got to come up with SOMETHING good to argue about, don't we?

Do you mean to imply that we don't argue about every single thing that ever
comes up on this ng? Or did you mean to emphasize the word "good"?

;)

[Dave S]

Perhaps now would be a good time for an aircraft manufacturer to
introduce a new design "mid-wing" aircraft. Actually.. We have a few
that meet the bill.. The Velocity (so what if its a kit) comes to mind.
How does THAT figure into the grand scheme?

Dave

C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:

> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

[Jay Honeck]

> Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be
out
> of line. :~)
> Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly
justified.

Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
making that kind of money.

They're not running nuthin'...and there isn't a mid-level manager in the
world that is worth what my General Practioner makes.

Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With the
increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> John Price said that the question is usually settled the first time you try to set up
> the lawn chairs in the shade of the wing at Sun'n Fun.

Right -- the fuel vent drips slowly onto the Cessna pilot as he sits there
under the wing, until someone comes up and asks for a light for a cigarette ...


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> The wing spars have to pass through the fuselage. With a low-wing, that means a hump
> in the floor. With a high-wing, that means a lwo ceiling at that point. Planes that
> carry cargo would rather have a flat floor to ease loading. People, on the other
> hand, will step over a hump in the floor and bang their heads on a drop in the
> ceiling.

The spar is typically below the floor -- I don't have a hump on the floor of
my Cherokee, and I don't remember ever seeing one in an airliner. The cargo
handlers will might to worry about it in the airliner, of course.

> Dunno about "cold weather" planes, but the high-altitude aircraft which come to my
> mind are mid-wing aircraft; the U-2 and SR-71.

If a high-altitude plane is designed for ground surveillance, high wing
makes sense. "Cold weather" planes may refer to bush planes, which are also
high wing for obvious reasons.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> But when the fuel pump breaks, my engine keeps running.

Low-wing planes normally have an electric fuel pump to back up the pump
attached to the engine's accessory drive. Still, in this case, gravity is a
simpler and more elegant solution than an extra gadget.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.

Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:

Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

I can vouch for at least 125 ktas in my not-quite-mint-condition Warrior II
at the appropriate density altitude and 75% power, so please, no nonsense
about that being an imaginary POH number. A member of the Piper list who is
a professional bizjet pilot and a Warrior II owner gets 126-127 ktas,
probably because he takes better care of his plane and rigs it more cleanly.
I didn't do enough cross-country in the 172P to establish whether it also
meets its POH numbers.

Note that the difference may be due to factors that have nothing to do with
high-wing vs. low-wing. For example, the Warrior has particularly efficient
wheel fairings -- if you remove them, you lose 7 ktas.


All the best,


David

[David Megginson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Various resources on the 'net list a physician's average income as
>
> ranging
>
>>>anywhere from $129K to $255K annually.
>>
>>That makes it about the same as mid-level managers at my former place of
>
> employment.
>
> Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?
>
> When a business is paying mid-level managers what a physician averages in
> salary, something is seriously amiss. Unless the company is making gold, or
> selling crack, their profit margins aren't going to support such a salary
> structure for long.

It probably varies in different parts of the country, but 129K is a
middle-of-middle class income for a lot of urban areas. In fact, a family
would probably struggle a fair bit with a single 129K/year income in areas
around NY/NJ, Boston/Cambridge, Seattle, San Francisco/San Jose, or Los
Angeles -- you're going to have to pay your senior managers more than that
if you want to keep them.

I'm not say that there are not a lot of people less well off who'd give
anything to make 129K/year -- and in Canada, where things are cheaper, that
still translates into a respectable almost-upper-middle-class salary in
Canadian dollars -- but for the better-off parts of the U.S., I don't think
129K/year really counts as "upper middle class", much less "rich". Many
years ago, doctors' incomes put them fairly high up the social scale; now
they're behind most other professions.


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Doing a quick search for number of posts on the subject would
> then indicate you fly a low wing model?
>

I have, from time to time, but I own an Aeronca Champ'.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
t...
>
> heh heh, I was just yanking his chain a bit.
>
> Probably means I owe him a beer or two someday.
>

I didn't feel my chain being yanked, but I will NEVER refuse a beer. I
don't care who's buyin'.

[Bill Denton]

Of course, the conventional wisdom is to dump the privates and keep the
generals, because you can get new privates more easily than you can get new
generals. And in a variation of the Ma Joad philosophy, in a pinch a general
can do a private's job, but a private probably cannot do a general's job.
And this doesn't factor in the differences in value of an incompetent
general vs. a high-achieving private.

But "corporate memory" is a valuable asset: if you hire a new machinist, he
generally doesn't need to know anything about the company in order to
immediately become productive. All he needs to know is how to run his
particular machine (and I am not denigrating the contributions of
machinists). However, the production manager that the machinist works for
doesn't need to know very much about the machines on the shop floor, but he
does need to know a great deal about the company, notably such things as
seasonal variances in production requirements, new products that will
require shop floor changes, things like that.

So it goes...

And on a personal and unrelated note: George, based on a misidentification
on my part, a short while back I insulted you ("argue with a fence post"). I
have since become aware that it was someone else who had that unpleasant
characteristic, and I feel I owe you an apology. Please consider one
extended...




"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps this is why they are no longer employing so many people?
>
> There was certainly a distinct feeling to that effect amongst low-level
employees. I
> recall during some of the 2002 layoffs, it was explained to a friend of
mine that
> they were laying off low-level employees, but they were keeping their
managers so
> that they would have their strategy layer intact and could "spring ahead"
when the
> economy improved. Her opinion of this was that the people they were
keeping were the
> people who were responsible for the company's problems.
>
> I still wouldn't go that far, but I *did* roll over the company stock in
my 401K to
> another fund a while back.
>
> George Patterson
> If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Gene Seibel]

(C. Paul Williams, MD) wrote in message >...
> Hi, I'm new to this group and new to piloting, just having passed my
> private pilot FAA written and about halfway through flight school.
> I'm training in a Cessna 172SP and have a question for the experienced
> pilots out there. Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> aircraft and why?...I apologize if this is a redundant question on the
> newsgroup.
> Thanks. CPW

Wheels go on the bottom - that's where the gound is. Wings don't
matter - air is everywhere.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Roger Halstead]

On Mon, 10 May 2004 11:38:42 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be
>out
>> of line. :~)
>> Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly
>justified.
>
>Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
>making that kind of money.
>
I know quite a few project managers who made that much and they
*might* be at the bottom end of the middle level management structure.

OTOH, the ones making that kind of money were putting in so many hours
they were making less per hour than many of the union people.

>They're not running nuthin'...and there isn't a mid-level manager in the
>world that is worth what my General Practioner makes.

It depends on the who, what, when, and where. This is only lower to
mid "middle class income" in many areas including here in central
Michigan which isn't in the running when you look at New York, Mass,
and California. Even here where the cost of living is far less than
either coast you will usually find both husband and wife working at
this level.

>
>Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With the
>increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.

This area is predominately chemical industry and on the edge of the
automotive to the south of us.

Roger( retired and loving every minute of it) Halstead
(K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Steve Robertson]

There aren't any airplanes that flap their wings, either.

C J Campbell wrote:

> There are no low wing birds.
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:6RJnc.62886$Ik.4785128@attbi_s53...
> > Run a nicely profitable $60 million company and that income would not be
> out
> > of line. :~)
> > Keep it profitable in hard times and a higher number is certainly
> justified.
>
> Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
> making that kind of money.

Our middle managers make $75-100K, plus bonus of about 20%.

> They're not running nuthin'...and there isn't a mid-level manager in the
> world that is worth what my General Practioner makes.

I suspect your GP makes a lot more, but has rather high expenses in
operating his practice.

> Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With
the
> increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.

Given they had to write off major infrastructure costs a few years back
(wasn't George referring to 2002?) their profit margins are probably damn
near zero.

I got laid off from the telecomm industry (Satellite Communications) in
2000. In a nineteen month period our company stock went from $13 a share to
$103, then down to the penny stocks...then Chapter 7. The company had been
in business since 1981.

Company I'm with now (again) will do about (we project) $68M in revenue from
eleven companies accross four lines of business. We think we will have a net
return about $12M to the five partners/owners. Each company has it's own
manager, whom is our employee as a middle manager.

All in all, in the heyday of theTelecom industry, I'm sure $150-250K was not
out of line. It was not such salaries that killed the companies, but the
gearing up in infrastructure for the internet (at the demand of the FCC)
that didn't materialize.








> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Bob Fry]

"G.R. Patterson III" > writes:

> "C. Paul Williams, MD" wrote:
> >
> > Do you prefer flying a high wing or low wing
> > aircraft and why?...
>
> John Price said that the question is usually settled the first time
> you try to set up the lawn chairs in the shade of the wing at Sun'n
> Fun.

Yes, high wing airplanes make fine stationary shade covers, which the
manly low wing pilot makes use of after he jauntily slides his canopy
back, climbs out and alights on terra firma.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> The spar is typically below the floor -- I don't have a hump on the floor of
> my Cherokee, and I don't remember ever seeing one in an airliner.

I've seen them on some of the twins used for shuttles.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> Please consider one extended...

Accepted. Sorta wondered where that came from.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Tom Sixkiller" > writes:

> Remember, too, that doctors are mostly self-employed, so those numbers are
> NET PROFIT (after paying BIG insurance costs, staff, rent,
> this-that-and-the-other costs). In Gross income, it's probably more like a
> couple million $$$.

You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
nearly all the private practices to go out of business.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> Agreed -- but, remember, George was referring to MIDDLE level managers
> making that kind of money.

Yes. Our structure was that up to 15 people or so would be managed by a "Director".
Directors were managed by "Executive Directors". Executive Directors would be under
"Vice Presidents", with the CEO on top of the heap. Director salaries tended to start
about $80K and top out about $125K. Executive Directors started about $100K and might
possibly reach $190K. I was not made aware of the salaries of the CEO or AVPs. There
were also bonuses which were based on product sales ("performance-based pay", it was
called). If the product for which an ED was responsible did well that year, that ED's
salary could well be over $250K, even if the rest of the company was in dire
straights. That, of course, led to near-warfare between EDs as the situation
degenerated.

> Also, if I recall, George was in the telecommunications industry. With the
> increased competition in that field, the profit margins are way down.

Actually, with the exception of wireless, the competition wasn't a big factor. The
dotcom crash reduced demand for land-based equipment, including lines, servers,
multiplexing equipment, fiber, etc.. Suddenly the companies went from scrambling to
install more plant to having a surplus. Since much of our work was producing programs
to help companies efficiently plan for expansion, demand for our products took a
nosedive. We could've handled reduced profit margins, but when sales drop by 75% or
more, people have to go.

In the wireless technology field, however, competition was a big factor, and it is as
Jay stated. Sales were not good there, mainly because our owners factored an
exorbitant profit into the cost.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> But "corporate memory" is a valuable asset: if you hire a new machinist, he
> generally doesn't need to know anything about the company in order to
> immediately become productive.

Within limits, this is true at my former employer, but our slogan was "Performance
from Experience", and that experience will be vastly reduced if the company does turn
around.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Big John]

Jay

I had (he is now gone with his boots on in bed) a Doc (Flight Surgeon)
friend. Wife was widow of a Fighter Pilot friend of mine who bought
the farm in an early F-80 (small engine) taking off at Denver on a hot
day.

He (Doc) finished his tour and got out and located in Dallas. Family
was in Iowa and they wanted to take their children to see grandparents
over week ends. Helen got a PP in a 172 (all it takes is money).Then
they bought a Bo and continued flying and got her commercial and
Instrument. Joined the 99's and flew in the Powder Puff Derby's, etc.
High proficiency pilot.

After this, Ed got a doc's PP and they flew happily ever after.

Not only was he a good Doc but a smart one :o) to make his wife the
FP. May he rest in peace.

Long story about him and his wife but not enough time or space to
write a book here :o)

Fly safe.

Big John


On Sun, 09 May 2004 12:32:02 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> As to the "doctor killer"...I think that applies more to the
>> egotistical specialties like surgery, and I'm just a poor country
>> radiologist.
>
>Good one! ;-)
>
>Actually, most doctors make great pilots. What kills 'em is the fact that
>they are too busy to stay current, and they end up flying into conditions
>that they are no longer able to handle.

[David Megginson]

Steve Robertson wrote:

> There aren't any airplanes that flap their wings, either.

You've never heard of the ornithopter, then:

http://www.ornithopter.net/index_e.html

As soon as it's certified (well, as soon as it actually works), I'm
confident that all of the posters who made the
still-funny-after-all-these-years comment about birds not having wings on
the bottom will sell their current planes and buy one.


All the best,


David

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> Steve Robertson wrote:
>
> > There aren't any airplanes that flap their wings, either.
>
> You've never heard of the ornithopter, then:
>

Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. He didn't say there were no aircraft that
flap their wings, he said there were no airplanes that flap their wings. As
an airplane is an aircraft that produces lift by driving a fixed wing
through the air, he's right.

[Bob Noel]

In article rs.com>,
David Megginson > wrote:

> The spar is typically below the floor -- I don't have a hump on the floor
> of
> my Cherokee,

What is that thing under the rear seat in my 140?

>and I don't remember ever seeing one in an airliner. The
> cargo
> handlers will might to worry about it in the airliner, of course.

airliners have fuselages high enough that the passengers can be
above the spar.

--
Bob Noel

[Paul Sengupta]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > Why do so many people equate the position of the wings to
> > one's "manliness?"
> >
>
> I wouldn't know, but I have observed that those that do so tend to fly
> low-wing airplanes.

As in compensating for something?

Paul (who can strap guided missiles under the wings on my
plane...) (not related to the "compensating" thing...er...)

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Fry wrote:
> >
> > But at some point the boy must grow into the man, ....
>
> Sez who?
>
> "I wanna be a pilot when I grow up!"
> "Son, you can't do both."

Some people in work mentioned things they were "in to" as
children. I said as a child I was into cars and planes. They
looked at me funny.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,

Mine doesn't have any doors. Or one big clear one wrapped
around the top, depending on how you look at it.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
> I prefer high wing aircraft because I like to be able to see and take
photos of
> objects on the ground.

I've always got the option of going inverted and taking photographs straight
"up"...

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I have no idea why so many airliners have low wings. They seem to me to be
a
> distinct disadvantage.

You get a better view of the sky. Try flying in a BAe 146.
You can spend the whole flight just looking at a Lycoming
turbofan.

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
.rogers.com...
> High-wing planes can have a "both" position on the fuel selector, which
> simplifies fuel management. Low-wing planes need to use pumps rather than
> gravity, so they cannot have a "both" postition

Why not? Mine has one.

Paul
Scottish Aviation Bulldog G-DOGG

[Paul Sengupta]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > The spar is typically below the floor -- I don't have a hump on the
floor of
> > my Cherokee, and I don't remember ever seeing one in an airliner.
>
> I've seen them on some of the twins used for shuttles.

In Brooklands Museum where I work part time as a volunteer,
we have a cartoon in the Viscount from a bygone era where it
shows the best place for men to sit was where the air hostess
with her knee length skirt had to step up over the spar box,
showing the tops of her stockings...

Paul

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
> nearly all the private practices to go out of business.

Not from what I've read; in fact, I heard recently of a move on the part of some
physicians to refuse to accept insurance. The claim is that insurance companies pay
out an average of 60% of the actual fees submitted, and the paperwork is complex
enough to required at least one extra bookkeeper-type person per physician. A GP who
accepts no insurance claims can charge half what the competition charges and make out
like a bandit. I think that was on NPR.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> How does THAT figure into the grand scheme?

Fit? Why does it need to fit?

Love that plane!

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> > You sure about that? I thought the march of managed care had caused
> > nearly all the private practices to go out of business.
>
> Not from what I've read; in fact, I heard recently of a move on the part
of some
> physicians to refuse to accept insurance. The claim is that insurance
companies pay
> out an average of 60% of the actual fees submitted, and the paperwork is
complex
> enough to required at least one extra bookkeeper-type person per
physician. A GP who
> accepts no insurance claims can charge half what the competition charges
and make out
> like a bandit. I think that was on NPR.

That sounds more like Medicare/Medicaid than PPO insurance situations.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> That sounds more like Medicare/Medicaid than PPO insurance situations.

Well, the doctors interviewed spoke about these problems with insurance. They accept
only cash or check. A spokesperson for an insurance organization also presented a
rebuttal, which basically was that they don't feel that enough doctors will start
doing this to become a threat to them.

George Patterson
If you don't tell lies, you never have to remember what you said.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> >
> > That sounds more like Medicare/Medicaid than PPO insurance situations.
>
> Well, the doctors interviewed spoke about these problems with insurance.
They accept
> only cash or check. A spokesperson for an insurance organization also
presented a
> rebuttal, which basically was that they don't feel that enough doctors
will start
> doing this to become a threat to them.

A "threat" how?

I do know that many (most??) doctors now refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid
patients. I know our family doctors won't.

[C. Paul Williams, MD]

> I do know that many (most??) doctors now refuse to accept Medicare/Medicaid
> patients. I know our family doctors won't.

Whoa! There are certainly some doctors who refuse to accept any
insurance (a small handful, since most patients won't see a doctor who
doesn't accept their insurance) and probably more that don't accept
medicare or especially medicaid but it is far from most and probably
far from many. Those that don't get some peer pressure since the
burden then falls on their colleagues in the community.
The reason most physicians end up not accepting insurance isn't
because they are nasty...it's because what insurance pays them
frequently won't cover their own costs. What other business would be
expected to operate at a loss? And like it or not, to the
practitioners, medicine is a business.
Most physicians don't start earning income until they are 30 and
usually with hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Blah, blah,
blah.
Some states require participation with medicare/medicaid as a
condition of licensure.
There is so much wrong with our health care system in the US that I
have changed my long standing opposition to nationalized health
care...I now believe it is the only way every person in the US can get
health care. Just don't expect it to be the same level of on demand,
every test and drug, every complaint addressed care that it has been
for those with private insurance.
OK, I'm a newbie here, flame away!
CPW

[David Megginson]

C. Paul Williams, MD wrote:

> There is so much wrong with our health care system in the US that I
> have changed my long standing opposition to nationalized health
> care...I now believe it is the only way every person in the US can get
> health care. Just don't expect it to be the same level of on demand,
> every test and drug, every complaint addressed care that it has been
> for those with private insurance.
> OK, I'm a newbie here, flame away!

No flames required.

Our system in Canada has its advantages and disadvantages -- for example,
family doctors can prescribe any tests they think necessary without getting
an insurer's permission first, but on the other hand we have a shortage of
family doctors in some areas, forcing some people to use walk-in clinics at
first when they move to a new town.

Hopefully the U.S. will find a way to emulate the good parts of Canada's
system -- we spend a lot less per person on health care for an equally
healthy population -- while avoiding some of the bad parts. And with luck,
U.S. doctors will still make enough to keep flying.


All the best,


David

[Cub Driver]

>Hopefully the U.S. will find a way to emulate the good parts of Canada's
>system

This would be extremely difficult, given that Canadians depend upon
the existence of the U.S. health care system next door to provide fast
care, esp in cardiac cases.

Where will Americans go when health care is rationed? Well, there's
always India.

Noting the number of Canadians in American hospitals, a physician
entrepreneur in India has built a hospital to serve them for more
routine procedures, such as hip replacements. You can fly to India and
get your new hip in a few days instead of the months that would be
required in Canada, and for about a third of the price that would be
charged in the U.S.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! blog www.vivabush.org

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Cub Driver > writes:

> Where will Americans go when health care is rationed? Well, there's
> always India.

What do you mean "when"? It's heavily rationed now.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[tony]

>
>> High wined aircraft usually have two doors, low winged ones have one,
>
>Mine doesn't have any doors. Or one big clear one wrapped
>around the top, depending on how you look at it.
>
>Paul
>
Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I climb
into my airplane it's raining. I have enough problem trying to keep the
passanger seat dry with a single door. I think your one big clear one would be
great for recreational flying, but the good news for me is, most of my time
gets paid for out of a corporate pocket, not my own, so utility in not so nice
conditions becomes important.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
>
> Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time
> I climb into my airplane it's raining. I have enough problem trying to
> keep the passanger seat dry with a single door.
>

You should have gone with a high wing. You could have kept your seats dry
and had another door as a bonus.

[Robert M. Gary]

David Megginson > wrote in message rs.com>...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> > I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.
>
> Do you have a source for that? It happens that I have the PIM's (generic
> POH's) on my shelf for the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
> training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
> numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
> engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:
>
> Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
> Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas

My experience is the same as a CFI. The Cherokee is faster. The seats
are also a bit further apart (we're talking inches here). The Cherokee
is also more stable and doesn't flop around as much. Of course the
hardest part of doing stalls in a Cherokee is knowing when its
stalled. Its so tame its hard to detect. Most of them simply will not
give you a break with power on and the yoke back to the stops.

-Robert

[tony]

>the 1981 Skyhawk (the plane I did most of my
>> training) and the 1979 Piper Warrior II (the plane I own, though the same
>> numbers apply to the 1981 Warrior II). Both have a 160 hp O-320 Lycoming
>> engine. Here are the true airspeeds at 8,000 ft DA and 75% power:
>>
>> Cessna 172P Skyhawk: 121 ktas
>> Piper Cherokee Warrior II: 127 ktas
>
>My experience is the same as a CFI. The Cherokee is faster. The seats
>are also a bit further apart (we're talking inches here). The Cherokee
>is also more stable and doesn't flop around as much. Of course the
>hardest part of doing stalls in a Cherokee is knowing when its
>stalled. Its so tame its hard to detect. Most of them simply will not
>give you a break with power on and the yoke back to the stops.
>
>-Robert

Isn't it also true that most high perforance SEL are low wing? I admit, in
spite of all their shortcomings, I do like Mooneys, and don't know of an
equivelent high wing airplane that matches its performance. Or, for that matter
(I'll retreat into my panic room and lock the door) a low winged one that's
commecrially available.

[Paul Sengupta]

"tony" > wrote in message
...
> Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I
climb
> into my airplane it's raining.

You could always get someone to hold an umbrella for you...that's the way
the RAF guys do it, or so I'm told! :-) Probably got some cadets to do it.

Paul

[tony]

>
>> Paul, as much as I like your concept, probably 10 or 20% of the time I
>climb
>> into my airplane it's raining.
>
>You could always get someone to hold an umbrella for you...that's the way
>the RAF guys do it, or so I'm told! :-) Probably got some cadets to do it.
>
>Paul
>
>
Paul even though I run my own company, if I asked one of my people to hold an
umbrella for me as I got in, then somehow get to my destination and hold it for
me when I got out, well. . .

I'll stick wioth the Mooney.

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> > I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from the same year.
>
> Do you have a source for that?

According to Clarke's "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Aircraft", the PA-28 was
introduced in 1961. At that time, the 172 had a 145hp engine, cruised at 130 mph, and
the difference between max gross and empty weight was 1040 lbs. The PA-28 had 150hp,
cruised at 130 mph, and the difference in the two weights was 945 lbs. With the
optional 160hp engine, cruise went up to 132 mph and capacity to 990 lbs for the
PA-28.

In 1963, the PA-28s with 180hp engines became available, which made the plane 11 mph
faster than the 172 (which still had 145hp). Carrying capacity also went up to 1175
lbs, which exceeded the Cessna's for the first time. Note that 150hp and 160hp
versions were still being produced, so whether a PA-28 built during the mid-60s can
out-perform a 172 of the same period, depends on the engine in the Piper.

In 1968, Cessna went to 150hp, which boosted cruise speed to 138 mph (still 3 mph
slower than the 180hp Piper but faster than the 160hp model). Capacity went down to
986 lbs.

In 1974, Piper introduced the PA-28-151. With 150hp, the cruise was 126 mph (12 mph
slower than the Cessna), but the plane could carry 1024 lbs.

In 1977, both Cessna and Piper went to 160 hp. For Cessna, this was the infamous "H"
series engine. Cruise for the Cessna stayed 138 mph and capacity stayed 986 lbs
(though max gross went up) Cruise for the Piper was 140 mph and capacity dropped to
972 lbs.

Piper continued to make 180hp planes, and the PA-28-161, introduced in 1976, cruises
at 148 mph and carries 1137 lbs, both being significantly higher values than those
for the 172 of the period.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[G. Burkhart]

Thanks, George, for the detailed information on this. One question I have;
what is the fuel burn difference between the models/years?

-Greg B.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> David Megginson wrote:
> >
> > G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> >
> > > I doubt it. The 172 performs better on less power than a PA-28 from
the same year.
> >
> > Do you have a source for that?
>
> According to Clarke's "The Illustrated Buyer's Guide to Used Aircraft",
the PA-28 was
> introduced in 1961. At that time, the 172 had a 145hp engine, cruised at
130 mph, and
> the difference between max gross and empty weight was 1040 lbs. The PA-28
had 150hp,
> cruised at 130 mph, and the difference in the two weights was 945 lbs.
With the
> optional 160hp engine, cruise went up to 132 mph and capacity to 990 lbs
for the
> PA-28.
>
> In 1963, the PA-28s with 180hp engines became available, which made the
plane 11 mph
> faster than the 172 (which still had 145hp). Carrying capacity also went
up to 1175
> lbs, which exceeded the Cessna's for the first time. Note that 150hp and
160hp
> versions were still being produced, so whether a PA-28 built during the
mid-60s can
> out-perform a 172 of the same period, depends on the engine in the Piper.
>
> In 1968, Cessna went to 150hp, which boosted cruise speed to 138 mph
(still 3 mph
> slower than the 180hp Piper but faster than the 160hp model). Capacity
went down to
> 986 lbs.
>
> In 1974, Piper introduced the PA-28-151. With 150hp, the cruise was 126
mph (12 mph
> slower than the Cessna), but the plane could carry 1024 lbs.
>
> In 1977, both Cessna and Piper went to 160 hp. For Cessna, this was the
infamous "H"
> series engine. Cruise for the Cessna stayed 138 mph and capacity stayed
986 lbs
> (though max gross went up) Cruise for the Piper was 140 mph and capacity
dropped to
> 972 lbs.
>
> Piper continued to make 180hp planes, and the PA-28-161, introduced in
1976, cruises
> at 148 mph and carries 1137 lbs, both being significantly higher values
than those
> for the 172 of the period.
>
> George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[G.R. Patterson III]

"G. Burkhart" wrote:
>
> Thanks, George, for the detailed information on this. One question I have;
> what is the fuel burn difference between the models/years?

Clarke doesn't have fuel burn figures, but consumption is usually about 0.055 gallons
per horsepower.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[Roger Halstead]

On Fri, 14 May 2004 23:11:53 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>"G. Burkhart" wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, George, for the detailed information on this. One question I have;
>> what is the fuel burn difference between the models/years?
>
>Clarke doesn't have fuel burn figures, but consumption is usually about 0.055 gallons
>per horsepower.
>
The old PA28-180, Hershey bar wing Cherokee 180 burns between 8 and 10
GPH, depending on how hard you push it.

It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
You can tell I prefer the 180<:-))

It was a great short field plane and to me all of the Cherokees ride
the bumps much better than the Cessnas of the same size.

>George Patterson
> I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

They're worse 'n ants.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 08 May 2004 22:30:39 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> We've been fighting for years on this subject with Jim Fisher and Jay
>> Honeck, trying to convince them that low-wingers are more masculine and
>> overall a better choice for real pilots, but they won't listen
>
>Don't let him fool you, Doc Williams -- HECTOP is a known high-wing pilot
>and Communist sympathizer. And we all know what them Com-simps are all
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

that must be the reason whz he left Russia back then ...

>about, now DON'T we....?

martin


--
If John and Peter get together and take money from Paul at gunpoint,
we call it armed robbery. If two thousand voters get together
and decide to take money from another thousand, we call it taxation.
C J Campbell in rec.aviation.piloting

[Jay Honeck]

> It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
> between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
> You can tell I prefer the 180<:-))

The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
There is no substitute for horsepower.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article <Fpmpc.53004$xw3.3200075@attbi_s04>, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

> > It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
> > between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
> > You can tell I prefer the 180<:-))
>
> The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
> There is no substitute for horsepower.

even more important:

aerodynamics (compare the twin Comanche to the Apache).

and, of course, money

--
Bob Noel

[EDR]

In article <Fpmpc.53004$xw3.3200075@attbi_s04>, Jay Honeck
> wrote:

> > It may have been physiological, but it seemed like the difference
> > between the 180s and the er... lesser models was like night and day.
> > You can tell I prefer the 180<:-))
>
> The only immutable thing I've learned from airplane ownership is this:
> There is no substitute for horsepower.

.... and horsepower = $$$

And we all know there is no substitute for more $$$!